On 01/08/20 10:42, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > In closing: it seems short-sighted that the FIT specification placed a > "naked" pointer at a fixed offset in flash, rather than a three-field > structure consisting of: > - a GUID, > - preceded by a structure size, > - preceded by the FIT pointer. > > Because, using a GUID-ed approach, the chance to *incorrectly* deduce > "yes FIT" would be 1 in (2^128) -- all 128-bit values except one magic > value would indicate "no FIT". That's good. > > Whereas, with the spec's current "naked pointer" approach, the chance to > *correctly* deduce "yes FIT" is 3 in (2^64) -- all 64-bit values except > three magic values indicate "yes FIT". Not good.
Sorry I messed up the first half of the last paragraph. I meant: With the spec's current "naked pointer" approach, the chance to incorrectly deduce "yes FIT" is ((2^64)-3) in (2^64). So an incorrect decision is almost certain. Thanks Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#53010): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/53010 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/69521538/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
